In reality, the person that gets saved is always the person that the savers want to save. From situation to situation there are a huge number of variables affecting what the savers' desire is. These situations are often unrelated to a person's disability status, and usually have a lot more to do with how much the saver likes the savee.
I'm physically disabled, and some big determining factors as to whether I will be helped or not are: how much I am liked by that person, if I can satisfy their religious or political ideology, if I can give them a way to help me that brings meaning to their lives, and if they can make themselves look like a good person to their peers.
The point of the exercise is to try to figure out which variables are most valued in theory.
When you're disabled you must come to terms with this reality and accept it quickly. You cannot waste time with theory. Theory will lead to your death. You must be practical and efficient to survive.
You can't just dismiss theory.
But you can accept it and design systems with that in mind.
So I guess I do like theory. But I think having conversations about how to force humans to behave differently is a waste of precious resources.
Human nature is to help disabled people when there is a surplus of resources, and to not help when there's not enough. So I think talking about what should happen during times of scarcity is not a good use of resources, because disabled people will always be abandoned when the resources do not exist to care for them. Nothing can change that.
Better to focus on building systems that reduce the severity and duration of bad times so they are short lived and prosperous times are longer lived.
> And these things weren’t said as the conclusions of careful, extended argument. They were casual assertions. They were the kind of thing you skip over without pause because it’s the uncontroversial part of your talk.
Did I miss her refuting her own initial assertion later in the article? Are you teasing out or interpreting between the line the position you assert that she espouse because you got it from somewhere later in the article?
The thesis of her tirade, the desert island and taking the "more capable" person, really left a lot of details out. It appears poised to support her argument rather than pose an interesting question. She claims she can find counter-examples, which she never mentions, and then continues on her tirade. This seems like an underhanded way to guilt anyone who might question her.
Here's an example where it becomes more interesting. Suppose you're on a desert island and you have 3 people. You, a disabled person, and an able-bodied person. Which do you choose to take?
Her implication is that you should take the disabled person. But in reality the _rational_ argument can go either way. I'm shocked that she missed this but also unsurprised. That is, rational philosophy is perfectly capable of addressing her argument without the need to inject several new variables that provide no value.
If you need someone to lift heavy things, and the disabled person does not have arms (or use of their arms), do they provide positive utility that enhances your survival? No. I think any rational actor can see this. In this case, it makes sense to take the able-bodied person. Ethically and morally questionable but certainly rational.
If you need someone to distill water, and the disabled person is a scientist, it would make sense to take the disabled person. You can make up for their shortcomings and the net utility is positive for your survival. Again, ethically and morally questionable but certainly rational.
I browsed the author's Google scholar page and am left unimpressed at the quality and depth of her papers. The URL of the website tells me all I need to know. I am unsure what the author is chasing but we can be certain it's not philosophy.